EN中文

Journal of Geographical Sciences >

2023 , Vol. 33 >Issue 9: 1832 - 1850

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-023-2155-1

Research Articles

Housing tenure and type choices of urban migrants in China

  • LIU Wangbao ,
  • LIU Lan
Expand
  • College of Geography Science, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510631, China

Liu Wangbao, Professor, specialized in urban social geography. E-mail:

Received date: 2022-06-25

  Accepted date: 2023-03-21

  Online published: 2023-10-08

Supported by

Social Sciences Research, Ministry of Education of China(17YJA840011)

Fold

Abstract

The rapid growth in the number of urban migrants in China has brought about a lack of housing for migrants. The housing preferences and factors influencing those for urban migrants in China are examined using data from the China Migrant Dynamic Survey (CMDS) conducted in 2017. This study demonstrates that urban migrants in China typically rent their homes and that factors such as household life cycle, education, hukou type, occupation, range and duration of movement, and social integration have a major impact on these decisions. Large households, high levels of education, accompanying family migration, marriage, non-agricultural hukou, employment in state-owned enterprises, and high levels of societal integration with local society all increase the likelihood that migrants will purchase houses. Migration-related housing decisions are significantly influenced by regional disparities in economic growth. Because housing is more expensive in the economically developed eastern areas than in the central and western regions, migrants there are less likely to be able to buy a home. To preserve the rights of migrants, local governments should progressively change their housing policies, and housing developers should pay closer attention to the trends and preferences of migrants in terms of housing choice.

Key words： migrants; housing choice; influencing factors; Logistic regression model; China

Cite this article

LIU Wangbao , LIU Lan . Housing tenure and type choices of urban migrants in China[J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2023 , 33(9) : 1832 -1850 . DOI: 10.1007/s11442-023-2155-1

1 Introduction

Every Chinese resident must have a registered residence certificate, known as a hukou, under the residency registration system, which is a registered residence-based population management program that China has adopted for its inhabitants. The residence can be classified as either urban hukou or rural hukou, local hukou or non-local hukou, depending on whether the residence registration is located in rural or urban areas and if it is local or not. Hukou, a crucial system for managing urban and rural population under China’s planned economy, no longer restricts population movement between urban and rural areas and among regions after the reform and opening up, but local governments continue to use it as a guideline to distribute social resources, particularly social housing. Migrants have flocked to cities and coastal areas due to the fast urbanization and expanding regional economic development gaps, which have caused issues with such as housing, employment, and social security in the areas receiving the inflow of migrants (Wang and Zhang, 2010). With urbanization, the reform of hukou has been put on the agenda, and the constraints on the housing choice of the urban migrant population have been relaxed to some extent.
Previous research has indicated that variables such as urban type, individual and family economic status, ethnic identification and personal traits greatly affect the housing choices of international migrants. The homeownership rate of migrants in large immigrant cities is relatively low (Ioannides, 1987). A sound and equitable social welfare system is a necessary for migrants to access better housing, and local home prices, and the number of new buildings, housing laws, government subsidies, down payment requirements, and mortgage rates will all have an impact on the purchase decision (Henderson and Ioannides, 1989; Clark et al., 2016). Personal and household income is a major element in the international migrants’ home choice (Seo and Kwon, 2017). Permanent income has a significant positive effect on the likelihood of purchasing a home, whereas income uncertainty lowers the rate of homeownership. Lower-income migrants have fewer homeownership options, resulting in poorer housing conditions (Robst et al., 1999; Carter, 2011). Western racial differences, for example, can limit housing opportunities for migrants, who have a stronger sense of ethnic identity and are much more likely to purchase homes if they are assimilated and integrated (Constant et al., 2009). Personal characteristics of migrants, such as gender, age, marital status, number of children, longer working hours, job skills, and job stability can influence their housing choices (Andre et al., 2019). Pension insurance differences based on migrant status can contribute to housing disparities with local residents (Painter et al., 2001; Painter et al., 2003). At the same time, the resources of public service facilities influence the rental and purchase of housing (Morrow-Jones, 1988).
The factors influencing urban migrants’ housing choices in China include household socioeconomic characteristics, institutional factors, and mobility characteristics, which have been validated on various scales, including provincial and regional. Household size and average education level have a significant impact on the housing choice of urban migrants (Shi and Xue, 2014), and the larger the migrant’s household scale and higher the education level, the more likely the migrant is to purchase higher-priced commodity housing. Occupation has a significant impact on housing choice as well, with industrial workers more likely to build their own homes and civil servants more likely to purchase (Zhu et al., 2015; Jiang et al., 2017). Hukou has a significant influence on migrants’ housing preferences. Migrants are typically excluded from urban housing security due to hukou restrictions, making them ineligible for preferential policies such as government security housing and housing subsidies to some extent. Furthermore, the inequity of hukou and its related public services (such as medical care, elderly care, and education) has objectively raised the threshold for housing purchase, increased the cost of housing purchase and settlement of migrants in the inflow area, and caused a significant number of migrants to choose to rent houses (He and Fei, 2018). Migrants prefer to rent due to institutional constraints (Liu et al., 2014). Many studies have confirmed the influence of mobility issues on dwelling preferences. Renting is more prevalent among short-term and non-family migrants (Yang and Yang, 2018). Urban migrants’ housing preferences are significantly influenced by the level of urban development and economic growth in the area where they are moving (Li and Bian, 2020; Qi and Yi, 2021; Zhang et al., 2021; Mu et al., 2022). Urban migrants have a lower homeownership rate and a higher propensity to rent the larger the urban size of the inflow city. Much focus has been placed on the impact of social integration variables on urban migrants’ housing preferences. Past research has demonstrated that urban migrants are more likely to purchase housing when they have higher levels of social integration, cultural acceptance, and psychological identity (Song and Zang, 2017).
Urban migrants exhibit a distinct spatial grouping tendency. Western research has determined that because of economic issues, the majority of migrants reside in locations with subpar living standards, making it harder for them to settle down (Painter et al., 2001; Teixeira and Drolet, 2018; Drolet and Teixeira, 2020). Numerous migrants rent their homes, but due to unaffordable rent, they are forced to live in basements or risky but cheap neighborhoods, or they must share or rent illegal housing (Ray and Preston, 2009). The majority of immigrant populations lived in places with dangerous conditions and subpar infrastructure. Chinese cities have seen a significant influx of migrants as a result of urbanization. Yet, because of hukou regulations, they cannot fully access housing provident fund loans, and as a result, their housing conditions are subpar (Wu et al., 2013). Due to their low earnings, migrants are forced to rent in inexpensive “urban villages” because they cannot afford to own homes (Feng et al., 2017; Sun et al., 2021). Instead, they primarily find housing through private rental markets, employers, or friends (Wu, 2004). Low-cost security housing has emerged as a significant option for migrants in recent years as the policy of security housing continues to benefit them in China (Zhu, 2020). Nonetheless, renting continues to be the primary housing situation for urban migrants, and the majority of them even do not separate their house from their employment (Liu, 2016). Most often, migrant workers choose unstable housing, and moving is typically caused by a job change (Zhang and Zhou, 2015).
Studies on Chinese urban migrants’ housing preferences tend to concentrate on particular provinces or cities, particularly big cities. When it comes to the factors that affect urban migrants’ housing decisions, the majority of studies focus on the socioeconomic traits, institutional limitations, and mobility traits of urban migrant families, while the research on the effects of social integration and family migration factors on urban migrants’ housing decisions still needs to be strengthened. It is challenging to reflect the current state of affairs and the factors influencing urban migrants’ housing choices at the national level because the existing research frequently employs the local social survey data and hardly ever the national survey data. Based on this, the 2017 China Migrant Dynamic Survey (CMDS), Volume A, database from the National Health Commission’s annual large-scale sampling survey of migrants is used in this research. The respondents are migrants aged 15 and older who have lived in the region of the inflow for more than a month without becoming residents of the area officially (county, city). The questionnaire asks about the migrants’ social integration, family members, income and spending patterns, job status, mobility, and willingness to remain in the inflow area. The sample range of this survey is very wide, almost covering the entire country, making it possible to fully represent urban migrants’ housing preferences. This study examines the variables influencing urban migrants’ housing decisions using the urban portion of the data, focusing on the effects of social integration, family migration, and organizational variables. This research is important for China’s real estate development policies and for enhancing the housing security of urban migrants.

2 Data sources and analysis methods

2.1 Data sources

The CMDS is an annual large-scale national sample study of migrants that covers 31 provincial-level regions (hereafter provinces) with the exception of Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan. A stratified, multi-stage, size-proportional probability selection (PPS) methodology was used to create the questionnaire. The sample size of each province was divided into 7 categories, with sample sizes of 10,000, 8000, 7000, 6000, 5000, 4000 and 2000 respectively, in order to account for the differences between the various regions. The survey’s sample size is approximately 170,000, which includes about 450,000 family members of the migrants. An effective sample size of 86,231 is obtained after excluding migrants who live in rural areas (the sample of village committees in the questionnaire survey) and migrants who live in housing types like unit housing, borrowed housing, self-built housing, employment places, and other informal dwellings.

2.2 Methodology

Rental housing and owned housing make up the two types of housing tenure variables. The following model (the binary logistic model), which uses rental housing as the reference variable, is used to investigate the factors that influence the choice of housing tenure.
In p 1 − p = a j + β i x i + β k x k + β m x m + β f x f
where p denotes the probability of occurrence, and xi denotes basic household characteristic variables, and xk denotes organizational variables, and xm denotes mobility variable, and xf denotes social integration variable, and aj denotes a constant. βi, βk, βm, and βf are partial regression coefficients.
The types of housing include purchased commercial housing, rental commercial housing, and rental social housing, which are multi- categorical variables. The multi-nominal logistic model is adopted to analyze the factors influencing the choice of housing type, with rental social housing as the reference variable, the model is as follows.
ln p y = j x p y = J x = a j + ∑ i = 1 I β i x i + ∑ k = 1 K β k x k + ∑ m = 1 M β m x m + ∑ f = 1 F β f x f
where j is the various dependent variables, J is the reference variable, and p denotes the probability of choosing housing category j, and xi denotes basic household characteristic variables, and xk denotes organizational variables, and xm denotes mobility variables, and xf denotes social integration variables, and aj denotes a constant. βi, βk, βm, and βf are partial regression coefficients.

2.3 Variable settings

(1) Dependent variables: housing tenure variables and housing type variables. The CMDS divides the housing types of urban migrants into flat/employer housing, government-provided public rental housing, purchased commercial housing, purchased security housing, purchased small property rights housing, borrowed housing, workplace, self-built housing, other informal accommodation, rental private housing (whole rent), rental private housing (shared rent). The analysis scope of this study excludes samples residing in apartments/employer housing, borrowed housing, workplace housing, self-built housing, and other forms of informal housing. There are two types of home tenure: owned and rented. Rental housing covers government-provided public rental housing, rental private housing (whole rent), and rental private housing (shared rent). Owned housing includes purchased commercial housing, purchased security housing, and purchased small property rights housing. According to the differences in housing suppliers, the types of housing in the questionnaire in this study were divided into purchased commercial housing, rental commercial housing, purchased affordable housing, and rental social housing. Purchased commercial housing includes purchased commercial housing and purchased small property rights housing; rental commercial housing includes rental private housing (whole rent) and rental private housing (shared rent); Among them, the difference between rental commercial property and rental social housing is that there are no restrictions on commercial housing, and migrants can rent as long as they pay rent. In the CMDS questionnaire, social housing is equivalent to the public rental housing supplied by the government; however, there are some limits, and low-income households must apply to the government in order to be eligible to rent an apartment and live there. Table 1 displays the fundamental data of the dependent variables.
Table 1 Basic statistical analysis
Variables Classification criteria Basic descriptions
Samples (N) Prop. (%) Average value
Explanatory variables
Basic household characteristics variables
Gender Gender of migrants
Male 48122 55.81
Female 38109 44.19
Age of head of household The age of migrants 36
Household size Number of family members of migrants 3
Marital status “Married” corresponds to “first marriage” and “remarriage”; while “others” corresponds to “unmarried”, “divorced”, “widowed”, and “cohabitation” in the questionnaire
Married 71457 82.87
Others 14774 17.13
Family migration Family migrants are defined as the group accompanied by the head of household’s partner and children (if any).
Yes 3225 3.74
No 83006 96.26
Education level “Lower secondary and below” corresponds to “not having attended primary school”, “primary school” and “junior high school”; while “high school, secondary & tertiary” correspond to “senior high school/technical secondary school” and “junior college”; “undergraduate and above” corresponds to “undergraduate” and “graduate” in the questionnaire.
Lower secondary and below 46232 53.61
High school, secondary & tertiary 31691 36.75
Undergraduate and above 8308 9.63
Organizational variables
Nature of hukou “Agricultural hukou” corresponds to “agriculture” in the questionnaire; “non-agricultural hukou” corresponds to “non-agricultural”, “Residents who have been in an agricultural hukou”, “Residents who were formerly non-agricultural hukou”, “residents” and “others” in the questionnaire.
Agricultural hukou 64300 74.57
Non-agricultural hukou 21931 25.43
Occupation “Heads of state organs, civil servants” corresponds to “heads of state organs, party mass organizations, enterprises and institutions” and “civil servants, administrative personnel and related personnel”; “professional technical staff” corresponds to “professional technical staff”; “business services personnel” corresponds to “business”, “vendor”, “catering”, “housekeeping”, “cleaning”, “decoration”, “express delivery” and “other commercial and service personnel”; “agricultural, industrial workers” corresponds to “agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, fishery and water conservancy production personnel”, “production”, “transportation”, “construction” and “other production and transportation equipment operators and related personnel”; “irregularly employed and others” corresponds to “no-fixed occupation” and “others” in the questionnaire.
Heads of state agencies, civil servants 2484 2.88
Professional and
technical staff		 8333 9.66
Business services
personnel		 58243 67.54
Agriculture, industrial workers 12853 14.91
Irregularly employed
and others		 4318 5.01
Types of work unit “State-owned units” corresponds to “organs, institutions”, “state-owned and state-controlled enterprises” and “collective enterprises”; “other companies” corresponds to “shares/joint ventures”, “individual industrial and commercial households”, “private enterprises”, “wholly-owned enterprises in Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan”, “wholly foreign-owned enterprises”. “Sino foreign joint ventures”, “associations/private organizations” and “others” corresponds to “no unit” in the questionnaire.
State-owned units 7555 8.76
Other companies 70011 81.19
No work unit 8665 10.05
Variables Classification criteria Basic descriptions
Samples (N) Prop. (%) Average value
Mobility characteristics
Range of this mobility The scope of mobility is measured by “inter-
provincial”, “inter-municipal” and “inter-county within the city” in the questionnaire.
Inter-provincial 39397 45.69
Inter-municipal 30569 35.45
Inter-county within the city 16265 18.86
Mobility duration Length of stay of migrants in the place of inflow 7
Social integration variables
Whether they intend to stay in the local area ——
Yes 72810 84.44
No 1684 1.95
No idea 11737 13.61
Willingness to integrate with the local population ——
Agree 81728 94.78
Disagree 4503 5.22
Does it feel like you are already a local ——
Agree 68188 79.08
Disagree 18043 20.92
Regional variables
Eastern, central and western The eastern region includes Beijing, Tianjin, Hebei, Liaoning, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, Shandong, Guangdong and Hainan; the central region includes Shanxi, Jilin, Heilongjiang, Anhui, Jiangxi, Henan, Hubei and Hunan; the western region includes Inner Mongolia, Guangxi, Chongqing, Sichuan, Guizhou, Yunnan, Tibet, Shaanxi, Gansu, Qinghai, Ningxia and Xinjiang.
Eastern 36208 41.99
Central 23676 27.46
Western 26347 30.55
Dependent variables
Housing tenure Purchased housing includes purchased commercial housing, purchased security housing and purchased small property rights housing; rental housing includes government-provided public rental housing, rental private housing (whole rent), rental private housing (shared rent).
Rental housing 56747 65.81
Purchased housing 29484 34.19
Housing types Purchased commercial housing includes purchased commercial housing and purchased small property rights housing; rental commercial housing includes rental private housing (whole rent) and rental private housing (shared rent); purchased affordable housing includes purchased security housing; rental social housing includes government-provided public rental housing.
Purchased commercial housing 28193 32.69
Rental commercial housing 55527 64.39
Purchased affordable housing 1291 1.50
Rental social housing 1220 1.41
(2) Explanatory variables: basic household characteristics (reflecting basic household status), family migration (reflecting whether other significant family members follow the migration or not), organizational variables (reflecting the relationship of the household with work units or local governments), mobility (reflecting the basic mobility of the household), social integration variables (reflecting social integration in the inflow cities), and regional variables are among the explanatory variables. Gender, age of the head of the household, marital status, size of the household, level of education, and family migration are among the household characteristics variables. Organizational factors include hukou nature, occupation, and types of work units. Mobility factors include range and duration of mobility. The migrant’s readiness to integrate with the local community, their intention to remain there, and whether they identify as locals are among the social integration variables; Depending on where the influx occurs, the regional variables are separated into Eastern, Central, and Western areas. Table 1 displays the essential details of the explanatory variables.

2.4 Basic statistical analysis

Table 1 displays the basic characteristics of the migrants. As seen by the sample distribution, men’s samples are roughly 1.2 times larger than women’s samples, and 82.87% of the samples are married. Migrants are primarily young people, as indicated by their average age of 36. Only 3.74% of migrants bring family members with them. The majority of migrants (53.61%) have lower secondary or less as their degree of education. The majority of migrants (74.57%) have agricultural hukou status. Business services personnel make up the majority of migrants’ occupations, accounting for 67.54%. With only 8.76% state-owned, the type of labor unit for migrants is less state-owned. Inter-provincial flow accounts for 45.69% of this mobility’s range, while inter-city and inter-county migrants within a municipality flow only account for 35.45% and 18.86%, respectively. The average duration of migrant migration is longer, at 7 years. Migrants believe that the degree of social integration in the inflow area is relatively high, with those who plan to “stay in the inflow area”, “be willing to integrate with the locals”, and “believe that they are already locals” accounting for 84.44%, 94.78%, and 79.08% of the population, respectively. With a share of 41.99%, the cities receiving inflows are mostly in the east.
Purchased commercial housing has significantly improved the homeownership rate of migrants, with proportions of purchased commercial housing, rented commercial housing, purchased affordable housing, and rental social housing being 32.69%, 64.39%, 1.50%, and 1.41%, respectively. The 2015 National 1% Population Sampling Survey1(1 http://www.stats.gov.cn/) classified China’s housing types into purchasing new commercial housing, purchasing second-hand commercial housing, original public housing, purchased affordable housing and two limit housing, renting low rent housing and public rental housing, renting other housing and other housing. The proportions of these housing types among urban households in China were 23.46%, 7.29%, 11.28%, 3.02%, 34.11%, 2.19%, 13.89%, and 4.77%, respectively. So, homeownership rate of urban households is 45.05% (namely the sum of proportion of purchased new commercial housing, purchased second-hand commercial housing, purchased original public housing, purchased affordable housing and two limit housing) in 2015. The homeownership rate of urban migrants is just 34.19%, which is lower than the national average of 45.05% for urban households in 2015. This scenario is brought by the migrants’ mobility, their low affordability, and the constraints imposed by the housing policy. Urban migrants’ mobility lowers their likelihood of settling down and purchasing a home. Furthermore, migrants are frequently denied access to housing aid programs like the housing provident fund since hukou favors the housing policies of the local population.
Regarding the housing structure, the proportion of purchased commercial housing for urban migrants is appropriately higher than that of urban households nationwide in 2015, but the proportion of purchased affordable housing (1.50%) for migrants is significantly lower than that of purchased original public housing and purchased affordable housing for urban households nationwide (14.30% in total), and the proportion of rental social housing (1.41%) for migrants is also lower than that of rental low rent housing and public rent (36.30% in total) for urban households nationwide. So, it is clear that migrants are not in a strong position to buy or rent government-provided social housing. Migrants who want to settle down can only buy commercial properties since they are restricted in their capacity to buy government-provided social housing. Because only locals with local hukou can build their own dwellings, migrants are less likely to do so. The likelihood of migrants renting commercial property is significantly higher than the average level of urban households nationwide. Urban migrant households are more likely to rent commercial property (64.39%), while urban households nationwide are less likely (13.89%). Migrants must rent commercial property since it is impossible for them to benefit from the advantages of affordable housing due to hukou restrictions. Urban households have a national probability of purchased affordable housing and rental social housing of 14.30% and 2.19%, compared to urban migrants who had a probability of 1.50% and 1.41%, respectively. So, the hukou system still has a large impact on the housing preferences of urban migrants.

3 Urban migrants’ housing choice

3.1 Housing tenure choice

The analysis results of the binary logistic regression model (Table 2) show that the total Chi-square value of the model is 16,236.50 and is significant at p=0.000. The effects for the variables of “household size”, “marital status”, “family migration”, and “education level” in the basic household characteristics variables, and “household registration status”, “occupation”, and “types of work unit” in the organizational variables, “range of mobility” and “mobility duration” in the mobility variables, and “whether they intend to stay in the local area”, “whether they are willing to integrate into the local population” and “whether they feel they are already local” in the social integration variables, and “eastern, central and western regions” in the regional variables are all significantly impact on the urban migrants’ housing tenure choice.
Table 2 Model of housing tenure choice for urban migrants
Housing tenure
(1= owned, 0=rental)		 B Exp(B) Housing tenure (1= owned, 0=rental) B Exp(B)
Basic household characteristics variables Mobility characteristics
Gender (1=male, 2=female) ‒0.07*** 0.93 Range of mobility (with inter-county within the city as a reference) ***
Age of head of household 0.00 1.00 Inter-provincial ‒0.56*** 0.57
Household size 0.17*** 1.19 Inter-municipal ‒0.32*** 0.73
Marital status (1=married, 2=other) 0.95*** 2.58 Mobility duration 0.07*** 1.08
Family migration (1=yes, 2=no) 0.33*** 1.39 Social integration variables
Education level (with reference to undergraduate and above) *** Whether you intend to remain in the local area for some time to come (in case you do not want to)
Lower secondary and below ‒1.12*** 0.33 Yes 0.64*** 1.89
High school, secondary & tertiary ‒0.55*** 0.58 No ‒0.13 0.88
Organizational variables Willingness to integrate among the local population (1=yes, 2=no) 0.29*** 1.34
Nature of hukou (1=agricultural, 2=other) ‒0.51*** 0.60 Whether they feel they are already local (1=yes, 2=no) 0.77*** 2.16
Occupation (with irregularly employed and others as a reference) *** Regional variables
Heads of state agencies, civil servants 0.28*** 1.33 East-West (with West as reference) ***
Professional technicians 0.13** 1.14 East ‒0.26*** 0.77
Business services personnel ‒0.33*** 0.72 Central 0.19*** 1.22
Agriculture, industrial workers 0.01 1.01 Constants ‒2.39*** 0.09
Nature of employment unit (with no work unit as a reference) *** Likelihood estimates 94535.847
State-owned units 0.56*** 1.75 Effective sample size 86231
Other companies 0.20*** 1.22 Chi-square test 16236.50***

Note: β is the partial regression coefficient; exp(β)=eβ, which is the exponential conversion of the partial regression coefficient, and it can visually illustrate the change in the dependent variable due to a unit change in the independent variable. ***, ** and * indicate significant at 0.001, 0.01and 0.05 respectively.

(1) Impact of basic household characteristics variables
The household size, marital status, and family migration are among the basic household characteristics variables that all have a strong positive impact, that is, migrants with a larger household size and the characteristics of married, family migration have a higher homeownership rate. According to their respective B values of 0.17, 0.95, and 0.33, marital status has the biggest influence, followed by family migration and household size. Gender, education level and homeownership rate are negatively correlated, that is, the lower the homeownership rate of men and migrants with low education level. The B values of gender, lower secondary and below, high school, secondary and tertiary are ‒0.07, ‒0.12 and ‒0.55, respectively, indicating that the degree of education level is greater than the degree of influence of gender.
Age: In line with earlier studies’ findings (Gan et al., 2016), migrants’ homeownership rates tend to rise as they get older (Figure 1). The homeownership rate increases significantly among migrants in the 24- to 33-year-old age group because they are most likely to start a family. After age 33, however, the homeownership rate changes slowly as marriage and income levels stabilize.
Figure 1 Age of household head and housing tenure rate
Gender: Gender factors have a significant impact. Men own slightly fewer homes than women, as shown in Table 2, demonstrating that women are gradually eschewing customary constraints, possessing a strong sense of independence, and favoring homeownership.
Household life cycle: Marital status has a significant impact, with married households having 2.58 times higher homeownership rates than other households, in line with previous research (Zou et al., 2017). Household size also exhibit household life cycle characteristics, with each additional person increasing the homeownership rate by 19%. This shows that migrant’s housing tenure is significantly influenced by their household life cycle. When compared to western nations, the traditional Chinese family structure has a significant influence on housing choices.
Education: The choice of housing among urban migrants is significantly influenced by education level, and migrants with higher education typically have greater financial desire and capacity (Zou et al., 2017). More education increases a migrant’s likelihood of working for state-owned businesses and institutions, giving them access to housing incentives and the financial means to purchase a property, leading to increased homeownership rates. Low-educated migrants are more likely to work in low-paying jobs and have fewer financial means to purchase a home, making them more likely to opt to rent a home.
(2) Impact of family migration
A common research issue is how family mobility affects urban migrants’ housing preferences. According to certain studies (Liu et al., 2014; Yang and Yang, 2018; Lin et al., 2021), migrant families who relocate have a major edge when it comes to homeownership. Table 2 demonstrates family migration has a considerable impact on urban migrants’ housing preferences. Urban migrants with families have a 1.39 times higher homeownership rate than other families. Urban migrants who have migrant families are more likely to want to settle down long-term, and as a result, they are more eager to buy a home. Due to the privacy requirements of migrating families, they need to acquire properties to accommodate family members, resulting in a high proportion of homeownership.
(3) Impact of organizational variables
Among the organizational variables, the head of state agencies, civil servants, professional technicians and nature of employment unit in the occupational variables have a significant positive impact, indicating that the migrants whose occupation is head of state agencies, civil servants, professional technicians and their work units are state-owned units and other companies are more likely to purchase housing. Their B values are 0.28, 0.13, 0.56 and 0.20 respectively, indicating that state-owned units have the greatest impact, followed by heads of state agencies, civil servants, other companies and professional technicians. There is a negative correlation between business services personnel and homeownership rate, that is, migrants with business services personnel tend to rent houses, and their B value is ‒0.33.
The housing preferences of urban migrants are significantly influenced by all organizational characteristics. Hukou continues to play a significant effect in the housing choices made by urban migrants in China, according to earlier studies (Clark et al., 2019). This study demonstrates that urban migrants with rural hukou are more likely to rent a home than to buy one. The majority of rural hukou migrants work in low-wage jobs and have limited home purchasing power, demonstrating the continued importance of hukou in Chinese urban migrants’ housing decisions. The homeownership rates of urban migrants working in occupations such as heads of state organs and civil servants, professional technicians are 1.33 times, and 1.14 times greater than those of the reference type of “irregularly employed and others” respectively. Since the heads of state organs, civil servants and most professional technicians receive higher wages and are eligible for housing incentives such housing funds, they can afford to pay more for housing. Urban migrants who work in the commercial service sector typically rent homes due to the unstable nature of their jobs. Urban migrants’ housing preferences are greatly influenced by the kinds of job units they choose. Urban migrants employed by state-owned units and other enterprises are 1.75 times and 1.22 times more likely, respectively, to buy a home than migrant workers who are not employed by state-owned units. Urban migrants from state-owned units and other firms can purchase houses and enhance their living conditions thanks to better incomes and favorable housing policies.
(4) Impact of mobility variables
The housing choices of urban migrants are significantly influenced by all mobility factors. The likelihood of urban migrants buying a home decreases with increasing mobility range. Inter-provincial migrants have the lowest rate of homeownership, followed by inter-municipal migrants, which are 0.57 and 0.73 times more likely than inter-county migrants within a municipality, respectively.
The possibility that migrants will have access to social security and social welfare resources decreases as mobility range increases (Zhang et al., 2021). Moreover, inter-provincial and inter-municipal urban migrants have less desire to settle down because of the distance from their hometown. The city’s inter-county migrants are living close to their hometowns, are quite eager to settle down, and are very likely to decide to purchase houses. There is a significant positive correlation between mobility duration and homeownership rate. The homeownership rate will rise by roughly 7% with the extension of the flow of urban migrants for one year. The likelihood that migrants will buy a home increases as they remain in the inflow region for a longer period of time and become more accustomed to it.
(5) Impact of social integration variables
Social integration variables have a significant positive correlation with housing tenure, indicating that migrants with high social integration are more likely to purchase houses. Among them, the B values of “intend to retain in the local area for some time to come”, “will to integrate with the local”, and “feel they are ready local” are 0.64, 0.29, and 0.77, respectively, indicating that feel they are ready local has the greatest impact.
The social integration factor significantly affects the migrant’s housing tenure. Those who intend to remain in the local area for some time to come are 1.89 times more likely to purchase a home than the others. Those who are willing to integrate into the local community are 1.34 times more likely to purchase a home than others, and those who feel they are already local are 2.16 times more likely to purchase a home than others. The findings indicate that a key factor in determining housing tenure for urban migrants is integration into the local community, that psychological and life integration into the community strengthens the migrants’ willingness to settle (Wang et al., 2022), and that better social integration increases the likelihood of housing tenure among the migrants (Song and Zang, 2017).
(6) Impact of regional variables
There is a significant negative correlation between migrants living in the eastern region and housing tenure, and there is a significant positive correlation between migrants living in the central region and housing tenure, with B values of ‒0.26 and 0.19 respectively, indicating that migrants in the eastern region tend to purchase houses, while migrants in the western region tend to rent houses, and the impact of the eastern region is greater.
When comparing regionally, migrants who live in the East are less likely to buy a home than those who live in the West. The more developed eastern region has caused the region’s housing costs to increase (Yang and Yang, 2018). As a result, migrants have lower purchasing power and are more inclined to do so in areas with poor economic development (Tao et al., 2015). Because of the moderate housing costs and superior economic growth in the central region compared to the west, it is more likely that migrants will purchase houses and settle there.

3.2 Housing types choice

The results of the multiple logistic regression model (Table 3) shows that the total Chi-square value of the model is 18,523.92 and is significant at p=0.000, which is a good fit. The effects of “gender”, “age”, “household size”, “marital status”, “family migration”, and “education level” in the basic household characteristics variables, “hukou nature”, “occupation”, and “types of work unit” in the organizational variables, “range of mobility” and “mobility duration” in the mobility variables, and “whether they intend to stay in the local area”, “whether they are willing to integrate into the local population”, and “whether they feel they are already local” in the social integration variable, and “eastern, central and western regions” in the regional variables are all significant. The Chi-square values are 90.17, 18.11, 516.50, 1178.79, 1551.81, 75.45, 702.41, 1140.98, 326.25, 832.16, 2715.74, 703.09, 44.92, 1203.52 and 1323.75 respectively.
Table 3 Model of choice of housing type for urban migrants
Type of housing (with rental social housing as the reference variable) Purchased commercial housing Rental commercial housing Purchased affordable housing Chi-square
test
B Exp(B) B Exp(B) B Exp(B)
Basic household characteristics variables
Gender (1=male, 2=female) 0.39*** 1.48 0.46*** 1.58 0.10 1.10 94.17***
Age of head of household ‒0.02*** 0.99 ‒0.02*** 0.99 ‒0.02*** 0.98 18.11***
Household size ‒0.02 0.98 ‒0.20*** 0.82 ‒0.16*** 0.85 516.50***
Marital status (1=married, 2=other) 1.29*** 3.64 0.37*** 1.44 1.50*** 4.49 1178.79***
Education level (with reference to undergraduate and above) 1551.81***
Lower secondary and below ‒0.69*** 0.50 0.46*** 1.58 ‒0.22 0.81
High school, secondary & tertiary ‒0.39*** 0.68 0.17 1.19 ‒0.17 0.84
Family Migration (1=yes, 2=no) ‒0.06 0.94 ‒0.41* 0.67 ‒0.22 0.80 75.45***
Organizational variables
Nature of hukou (1=agricultural, 2=others) ‒0.28*** 0.75 0.23** 1.26 ‒0.23* 0.80 702.41***
Occupation (with no-fixed occupation and others as a reference) 1140.98***
Heads of state agencies, civil
servants		 ‒0.09 0.92 ‒0.43* 0.65 ‒0.59* 0.56
Professional and technical staff ‒0.05 0.95 ‒0.21 0.81 ‒0.32 0.73
Business services personnel 0.63*** 1.88 0.94*** 2.57 0.02 1.02
Agriculture, industrial workers ‒0.73*** 0.48 ‒0.78*** 0.46 ‒0.65*** 0.52
Nature of employment unit (with no work unit as a reference) 326.25***
State-owned units ‒0.29* 0.75 ‒0.89*** 0.41 ‒0.32 0.73
Other companies ‒0.33** 0.72 ‒0.58*** 0.56 ‒0.92*** 0.40
Mobility characteristics
Scope of this mobility (with reference to
inter-county within the city)		 832.16***
Interprovincial ‒0.53*** 0.59 0.06 1.06 ‒0.07 0.93
Inter-municipal ‒1.05*** 0.35 ‒0.75*** 0.47 ‒0.86*** 0.42
Mobility duration 0.08*** 1.09 0.01 1.01 0.10*** 1.10 2715.74***
Social integration variables
Do you intend to remain in the local area for some time to come (in case you do not want to) 703.09***
Yes 0.42*** 1.52 ‒0.22 0.80 0.48*** 1.61
No ‒0.23 0.79 ‒0.10 0.91 ‒0.11 0.90
Willingness to integrate among the local population (1=yes, 2=no) 0.34** 1.40 0.05 1.05 0.26 1.30 44.92***
Whether they feel they are already local (1=yes, 2=no) 0.78*** 2.18 0.02 1.02 1.06*** 2.88 1203.52***
Regional variables
East-West (with West as reference) 1323.75***
East 1.55*** 4.72 1.82*** 6.16 0.59*** 1.81
Central 1.36*** 3.91 1.18*** 3.26 0.85*** 2.34
Constants 1.33*** 3.79*** ‒0.86
Likelihood estimates 109936.79 Effective sample size 86231 Chi-square test 18523.92***

Note: β is the bias regression coefficient; exp(β)=eβ, which is the exponential conversion of the partial regression coefficient, and it can visually illustrate the change in the dependent variable due to a unit change in the independent variable. *** indicates significant at 0.001, ** indicates significant at 0.01, * indicates significant at 0.05.

(1) Impacts of basic household characteristics variables
In basic household characteristics variables, gender and marital status have a significant positive correlation in the choice of the type of migrant housing. In terms of the impact of purchasing commercial housing, their B values are 0.39 and 1.29 respectively, indicating that marital status has a greater impact on the purchase of commercial housing. In terms of rental commercial housing, gender has a greater positive impact. Age has a negative correlation with the purchase of commercial housing and the purchase of affordable housing by migrants, with a B value of -0.02, indicating a low degree of impact. The educational level of migrants is negatively correlated with purchased commercial housing, that is, migrants with high educational level are more inclined to purchase commercial housing. Migrants with low education level are positively correlated with current commercial housing. Moreover, education has a greater impact on purchased commercial housing.
Gender: The basic family characteristic variables all significantly influence the housing preferences of urban migrants. Men are more likely than women to buy and rent homes in China because men are typically considered as having more family obligations and taking on the task of housing acquisition.
Age: When compared to other housing types, migrants who are older are more likely to rent social housing, meet the threshold requirements for local social housing rights, and qualify for favorable social housing programs.
Household life cycle: Aspects of the family life cycle, such as family size and marital status, have a substantial impact. The likelihood of rental social housing increases with family size, whereas the likelihood of rental commercial housing or purchased affordable housing is minimal. Migrants who are married are more likely to buy and rent homes. Migrants with spouses need more privacy and possibilities to reunite with their relatives because marriage means they start a family (Jiang et al., 2017). They have a limited scope for migration, thus they are more likely to purchase a house.
Education: For urban migrants, education significantly and favorably affects their housing choices. Urban migrants with higher levels of education typically make more money and are more likely to choose to purchase commercial housing. In contrast, less educated migrants have fewer options and are not eligible for preferential policies such as the housing fund due to their reduced possibility of entering state-owned and institutional units. Thus, they are more likely to rent commercial houses.
(2) Impact of family migration
Family migration and the likelihood of rental commercial house are negatively correlated. Renting by migrant households is 0.67 times more likely than it is for non-family migrants. Families migrating together have a higher desire to settle down and stay for a longer period of time, but the cost of rental commercial house is high and unsettling, making it unsustainable for family members over the long term. For migrants with families, the likelihood of rental social housing is higher than the likelihood of rental commercial house. The availability of social housing helps to ease the financial strains faced by urban migrants.
(3) Impacts of organizational variables
In organizational variables, the nature of household registration is significantly negatively correlated with the probability of purchased commercial housing and affordable housing, and positively correlated with the probability of rental commercial housing. It has a greater impact on the choice of purchased commercial housing. The heads of national institutions and civil servants, professional technicians, and agricultural and industrial workers have a negative impact, while the occupation of agricultural and industrial workers has the greatest impact on housing type choice. Business service personnel have a positive impact, and this profession has the greatest positive impact on rental commodity housing. The nature of the employment unit is negatively correlated with the choice of various housing types. Among them, migrant workers located in state-owned units are less likely to choose rental commercial housing, while migrant workers located in other companies are less likely to choose purchased affordable housing.
The organizational factors significantly influence the housing choices of urban migrants. According to research (Liao and Zhang, 2021), migrants with agricultural hukou are less likely to purchase homes in cities and are more likely to rent social housing than to purchase commercial housing. More housing policy restrictions apply to migrants with agricultural hukou than to migrants with non-agricultural hukou, and these migrants frequently work at low-paying jobs that restrict their capacity to purchase houses. Migrants who work in the business service industry are more likely to purchase and rent commercial housing. Due to their greater income and financial resources, they are more likely to purchase a commercial house, but due to the mobility of their jobs, they are also more inclined to rent. Contrarily, agricultural and industrial workers are more likely to rent social housing, as most of them work for low wages and prefer low-rent security housing. Renting a house is less common among migrants who hold state-owned or other properties. They can afford the burden of homeowner ship because as the elite of the migrants, they are more likely to have access to more favorable housing policies or to earn a good wage (Zhu et al., 2015), due to the fact that immigrants without a unit usually earn less money and are more likely to rent a house.
(4) Influence of mobility characteristics
The mobility scope has a negative impact on the probability of purchased commercial housing, rental commercial housing and purchased affordable housing, that is, the larger the mobility scope of migrants, the lower the probability of choosing the above housing. And the largest impact is on the purchased commercial housing. Mobility duration has a positive correlation with the choice of the type of migrant housing, which is reflected in that the longer the mobility duration of migrants, the greater the probability of purchasing commercial housing, rental commercial housing, purchased affordable housing. And mobility duration has a greater impact on the purchase of affordable housing by migrants.
For urban migrants, mobility has a big influence on their housing preferences. The likelihood of purchasing a home decreases as mobility increases, whereas the likelihood of rental commercial house increases. Due to social security restrictions and the demands of their hometown family, migrants with a wide range of mobility are more mobile. The purchase of commercial housing and the purchase of affordable housing are positively correlated with the length of mobility. The longer the migration, the more likely it is that the migrants will settle in the area of the inflow; as a result, they buy commercial house. As migrants stay longer in the area where they are coming from, they progressively become eligible to buy affordable housing. As migrants stay longer in the area where they are coming from, they progressively become eligible to purchase affordable housing. Therefore, their probability of purchased affordable housing will increase over time.
(5) Impact of social integration variables
The social integration variable exhibits a statistically significant positive relationship with the kind of housing preference, suggesting that migrants who have achieved a high level of social integration are more likely to buy a home. Among them, “if they believe they are ready local” and “do you enter to remain in the local region for some time to come” have the largest influence on the housing type choice. The least significant factor is “willingness to blend with the local population”.
Housing choices are significantly influenced by social integration factors. People who intend to stay in the local area are more likely to purchase houses. Homebuyers are more likely to be those who are willing to integrate into the local population, as well as those who feel like they are already locals. These results are consistent with early research (Jiang et al., 2017). Migrants who intend to settle down and interact with the community in an inflow city are more likely to purchase a house there (Mu et al., 2022).
(6) Impact of regional variables
Regional factors significantly positively correlate with the probability of housing type choice for urban migrants. Urban migrants in eastern and central cities are more likely to purchase houses than they are in western cities, and they are also less likely to rent social housing. Cities in the east and center are economically advanced and have a sizable influx of urban migrants (Liu et al., 2011). The region has a large migrant population since the eastern and central regions’ economies are more developed and can provide migrants a higher standard of living (Liu et al., 2015). As a result, migrants are more likely to settle in the east and center. However, due to restrictions on the purchase of affordable housing, migrants prefer to purchase commercial house. Some migrants, however, who are unable to bear the pressure of rising housing costs, opt to rent commercial houses. Despite the fact that some cities in China have loosened the hukou limitations on social housing distribution, the availability of social housing for urban migrants is still constrained as a result of the dense populations of migrants in central and eastern cities. Their alternate choice is to buy housing due to the limited policy of rental social housing (Huang et al., 2019).

4 Discussion

Hukou continues to have a significant impact on urban migrants’ housing decisions. The homeowner ship rate of urban migrants is much lower than that of urban households. The household registration system still has a significant impact on the distribution of social housing, although its restrictive role in restricting population mobility has been eliminated. Local social housing is only very slightly accessible to residents without local hukou. Yet, the Chinese government has frequently advocated for giving migrants the same access to fundamental social services as hukou locals. To safeguard migrants’ right to housing in the future, the hukou’s restricting role in the distribution of housing resources should be eliminated. Local governments should develop and update existing regulations, expand the availability of migrant social housing, and slash the requirements for applying for public rental housing and inexpensive housing.
Family migration has a considerable impact on urban migrants’ housing choices. The government should pay greater attention to how family migration affects urban migrants’ housing preferences and develop more policies that increase social security, medical care, and housing security for urban migrants. Governments must concentrate on enhancing the capabilities of migrants since organizational factors have a big impact on the housing choices of migrants. It can give additional employment possibilities for migrants, vocational training, and education. The housing preferences of urban migrants are significantly influenced by their social integration. The local government should enhance the environment and standard of living in the neighborhood, assist migrants in promoting integration, and raise their desire to settle down.
The following research issues regarding migrant housing are raised by this study and merit further investigation. For instance, psychological variables like social integration have an impact on urban migrants’ housing preferences by influencing their aspirations to settle down. Thus, we may study the relationship between the settlement intentions of urban migrants and their housing choices. In this study, only the variations between eastern, central, and western China are considered when analyzing the effects of regional disparities on migrants’ housing preferences. In order to study the influence of regional differences on urban migrants’ housing choices, future studies can incorporate variables such as urban housing prices, urban per capita GDP, and urban size. Moreover, the outflow location can be included in the regional difference factors because the regional differences in this study only take the inflow destination into account.

5 Conclusions

In China, rapid urbanization has drawn urban migrants. The hukou system continues to be a significant barrier to urban migrants’ housing choices and a key instrument for local governments in allocating housing resources, despite ongoing efforts by local governments to loosen hukou limitations on migrants’ access to public facilities. Urban migrants’ propensity to remain in the area of inflow is low since they have a low homeownership rate. Few urban migrants have the option to acquire social housing due to hukou and other issues. Urban migrants’ housing preferences are influenced by factors such as age, gender, marital status, and family size that represent the family life cycle. Married couples and large families are more likely to own their homes than to rent housing, indicating that households have a significant impact on urban migrants’ decisions on where to live. The real demand of households has developed into a significant criterion for the allocation of social housing, in addition to hukou, occupation, and other variables. Urban migrants’ housing preferences are substantially influenced by social integration and family mobility. The findings indicate that urban migrants’ psychology and their absorption into their new communities have an impact on their aspirations to settle. A significant likelihood of homeownership exists for urban migrants who are eager to assimilate into local society. As a result, social identity has a significant impact on how urban migrants are resettled. The presence of families among urban migrants increases their desire to settle down and to purchase houses. Local governments should therefore focus more on the benefits of family migration for urban resettlement and offer crucial auxiliary services like housing, healthcare, education, and other social security. Urban migrants’ housing preferences are greatly influenced by the extent and duration of their mobility. The inclination of urban migrants to own homes decreases as mobility increases. The inclination to buy a home in the city is substantially higher among urban migrants who live close to their birthplace. The greater the inclination to buy a home, the greater the likelihood of buying a commercial property, and the greater the rate of homeownership, the longer the length of mobility.

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
Andre S, Dewilde C, Muffels R, 2019. What do house wealth and tenure have to do with it? Changes in wellbeing of men and women after divorce using Australian panel data. Social Science Research, 78: 104-118.

DOI

[2]
Carter S, 2011. Housing tenure choice and the dual income household. Journal of Housing Economics, 20(3): 159-170.

DOI

[3]
Clark W A V, Deurloo M C, Dieleman F M, 2016. Tenure changes in the context of micro-level family and macro-level economic shifts. Urban Studies, 31(1): 137-154.

DOI

[4]
Clark W A V, Huang Y, Yi D, 2019. Can millennials access homeowner ship in urban China? Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 36(1): 69-87.

DOI

[5]
Constant A F, Roberts R, Zimmermann K F, 2009. Ethnic identity and immigrant homeowner ship. Urban Studies, 46(9): 1879-1898.

DOI

[6]
Drolet J L, Teixeira C, 2020. Fostering immigrant settlement and housing in small cities: Voices of settlement practitioners and service providers in British Columbia, Canada. The Social Science Journal, 59(3): 1-15.

DOI

[7]
Feng C, Li T, Cao G et al., 2017. Housing outcomes of family migrants at the place of destination. Geographical Research, 36(4): 633-646. (in Chinese)

DOI

[8]
Gan X, Zuo J, Chang R et al., 2016. Exploring the determinants of migrant workers’ housing tenure choice towards public rental housing: A case study in Chongqing, China. Habitat International, 58: 118-126.

DOI

[9]
He X Q, Fei H Y, 2018. Hukou and the household’s choice of housing modes. China Economic Quarterly, 17(2): 527-548. (in Chinese)

[10]
Henderson J V, Ioannides Y M, 1989. Dynamic aspects of consumer decisions in housing markets. Journal of Urban Economics, 26(2): 212-230.

DOI

[11]
Huang X, Dijst M, Van Weesep J, 2019. Tenure choice in China’s medium-sized cities after hukou reform: A case study of rural-urban migrants’ housing careers in Yangzhou. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 35(1): 353-373.

DOI

[12]
Ioannides Y M, 1987. Residential mobility and housing tenure choice. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 17(2): 265-287.

DOI

[13]
Jiang K, Hou M, Gong H, 2017. Study on the housing choice of floating population and its influencing factors: A case study of Chongqing. The World of Survey and Research, (1): 28-34. (in Chinese)

[14]
Li Z, Bian Y, 2020. Housing tenure choice of migrants in China and its influencing factors: An empirical analysis based on CMDS 2017. Journal of Engineering Management, 34(5): 148-153. (in Chinese)

[15]
Liao Y, Zhang J, 2021. Hukou status, housing tenure choice and wealth accumulation in urban China. China Economic Review, (1): 1-18. DOI: 10.1016/j.chieco.2021.101638.

[16]
Lin S, Lu T, Tian M, 2021. Family migration and housing tenure choice: Empirical evidences from 25 Chinese cities. Economic Geography, 41(5): 95-102. (in Chinese)

DOI

[17]
Liu H, 2016. Analysis on floating population’s housing in super-cities. Population Journal, 38(5): 45-53. (in Chinese)

[18]
Liu S H, Hu Z, Deng Y et al., 2011. The regional types of China’s floating population: Identification methods and spatial patterns. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 21(1): 35-48.

DOI

[19]
Liu T, Li H, Gao K, 2014. A study of housing selection of the floating population with family migration and its influencing factors: A case of Shanghai. South China Population, 29(3): 17-27. (in Chinese)

[20]
Liu T, Qi Y J, Cao G Z et al., 2015. Spatial patterns, driving forces, and urbanization effects of China’s internal migration: County-level analysis based on the 2000 and 2010 censuses. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 25(2): 236-256.

DOI

[21]
Morrow-Jones H A, 1988. The housing life-cycle and the transition from renting to owning a home in the United States: A multistate analysis. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 20(9): 1165-1184.

DOI

[22]
Mu X, Cui C, Cui J et al., 2022. Hierarchical migration patterns of China’s floating population and their impact on the housing choices. Acta Geographica Sinica, 77(2): 395-410. (in Chinese)

[23]
Painter G, Gabriel S, Myers D, 2001. Race, immigrant status, and housing tenure choice. Journal of Urban Economics, 49(1): 150-167.

DOI

[24]
Painter G, Yang L H, Yu Z, 2003. Heterogeneity in Asian American home-ownership: The impact of household endowments and immigrant status. Urban Studies, 40(3): 505-530.

DOI

[25]
Qi W, Yi J, 2021. Spatial pattern and driving factors of migrants on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau: Insights from short-distance and long-distance population migrants. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 31(2): 215-230.

DOI

[26]
Ray B, Preston V, 2009. Geographies of discrimination: Variations in perceived discomfort and discrimination in Canada’s gateway cities. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 7(3): 228-249.

[27]
Robst J, Deitz R, Mcgoldrick K, 1999. Income variability, uncertainty and housing tenure choice. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 29(2): 219-229.

DOI

[28]
Seo D, Kwon Y, 2017. In-migration and housing choice in Ho Chi Minh City: Toward sustainable housing development in Vietnam. Sustainability, 9(10): 1738.

DOI

[29]
Shi Z, Xue W, 2014. Research on housing choice for floating population and its influential factors analysis of dynamic data based on the survey on the floating population in Hubei province in 2012. West Forum, 24(2): 25-33. (in Chinese)

[30]
Song Q, Zang Q, 2017. The impact of social integration factors on the future housing purchase choice of floating population: An empirical analysis based on the data of national floating population dynamic monitoring survey in 2014. Shandong Social Sciences, (9): 70-76. (in Chinese)

[31]
Sun X, Chen W, Pfaender F, 2021. Urban space and public service facilities: An analysis of residential migration in Shanghai. Journal of Wuhan University of Science and Technology (Social Science Edition), 23(5): 508-517. (in Chinese)

[32]
Tao L, Hui E C M, Wong F K W et al., 2015. Housing choices of migrant workers in China: Beyond the hukou perspective. Habitat International, 49: 474-483.

DOI

[33]
Teixeira C, Drolet J L, 2018. Settlement and housing experiences of recent immigrants in small- and mid-sized cities in the interior of British Columbia (Canada). Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 33(1): 19-43.

DOI

[34]
Wang L, Zhang Z, 2010. Current situation and countermeasures of housing security of urban floating population. Journal of Industrial Technological Economics, 29(4): 5-10. (in Chinese)

[35]
Wang X, Qi W, Liu S et al., 2022. The settlement intention of urban-to-urban migrants in China: Spatial differences and driving factors. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 32(12): 2503-2524.

DOI

[36]
Wu F L, Zhang F Z, Webster C, 2013. Informality and the development and demolition of urban villages in the Chinese peri-urban area. Urban Studies, 50(10): 1919-1934.

DOI

[37]
Wu W P, 2004. Sources of migrant housing disadvantage in urban China. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 36(7): 1285-1304.

DOI

[38]
Yang Q, Yang Y, 2018. Buy or rent: What effects the migrants housing choice? Population & Economics, (6): 101-111. (in Chinese)

[39]
Zhang N, Zhou L, 2015. The housing problem of informal migrant workers and the countermeasures. Contemporary Economic Management, 37(1): 62-65. (in Chinese)

[40]
Zhang Y, Tan J, Chen L, 2021. Analysis on the influencing mechanism of the characteristics of population migration on the housing choice of floating population: Taking Guangdong province as an example. Journal of Engineering Management, 35(2): 153-158. (in Chinese)

[41]
Zhu X, Tan S, Wang S et al., 2015. Housing choice of migrant population in China: Facts and explanation. South China Population, 30(3): 35-44. (in Chinese)

[42]
Zhu Z, 2020. Public housing and the new generation migrant workers willingness to stay in cities: Evidence from the China Migrants Dynamic Survey. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University (Social Sciences Edition), (2): 98-108, 166-167. (in Chinese)

[43]
Zou J, Chen J, Wang H, 2017. How does social integration affect the residential choice of floating population? Based on the monitoring data of floating population in China in 2014. Journal of Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, 19(5): 64-79. (in Chinese)

Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉